Talk:Day of Silence

Day of Silence received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Day of Silence article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Holidays

	Holidays portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Holidays, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of holidays on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HolidaysWikipedia:WikiProject HolidaysTemplate:WikiProject HolidaysHolidays
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

HIV Statistics

I removed the information on MSM/Gay men and HIV because it is not relevant to Day of Silence, though it may be relevant to the MSM/Gay male community as a whole. The section on citing of statistics in relation to NDOS is certainly sufficient

Date

I understand that the Day of Silence is April 13th this year (2005). Is it April 13th in every year? How is the date determined? -- Creidieki 03:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In 2001 it was April 4. It traditionally is early in April but presumably the specific day is now decided by GLSEN. Hyacinth 01:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it's always on a wednseday (I probably spelled that wrong, I always do)

I Concur. Ccool2ax 13:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It usually falls on the third Friday of the month now. This year it is April 21st. 38.124.250.3 (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

I think there should be a criticism section. And no, I'm not an anti-queer christian or anything, I'm a queer anarchist with many gay and bi friends and have taken part in DOS 2 or 3 times. I personally feel it is somewhat ineffective. I think a Day of Shouting would be much better. Or any day to actually give our voices a chance to shine. The problem is, people try to ask what your doing, and you can't really tell them b/c all you have is a little card and it is really hard to truly convince anyone of anything if you can't articulate your position. Another idea, would be to have an entire week of queer activism including a DOS along with other more vocal and less-symbolic protests at the same time. On a campus with lenient rules rules regarding shows of affection, have a gay makeout session or something on the quad. Confronting heterosexist student organizations, speakers, campaigns for gender-neutral bathrooms etc. Just my two cents. But anyway, I don't just want to put my own personal rant into the article, so if there are any good sources of similar (or other criticisms), a critique section to the article would be good.

When I was 15 I organized my highschool to participate. That was almost 9 years ago. Looking back today, I think that being silent was very powerful for each of us, particularly for a group of people who were already "shouting." Lets not knock this brave, bold move that young people today are taking. As queer anarchists, we ought to show glowing love and support to young queers using there voice (which I would argue being silent is doing) to open up some more space for themselves and everyone to be more safe. Furthermore, being silent has allowed this movement to win certain kinds of recognition within schools, and as this is about making schools safe, rather then tearing them down, its probably important to think not only about our own righteous desires to shout at people but also about the ways in which we might carefully and thoughtfully take action that brings about a new and better condition of justice.

My High School, for some reason, did this late this year. The biggest problem was that the people who really noticed and payed attention to my silence were the people who already cared, so as a protest it did nothing. As a symbolic representation, does it have any use? Why be silent when, instead, you can make it so others do not have to be silenced? Is not prevention of more silence a better tribute? Voluntary participation means that those who need to understand what this silencing is doing are the ones who aren't silent.

AntiUsername 19 May 2006 (UTC)

There are 364 other days in the year that people can use to scream and shout. Gay pride parades are the most lively and in your face in the world. One of the reasons this silent protest was developed is because gay students who make vocal protests at schools are in very real danger of being physically attacked: it is a form of passive resistance which is symbolic but also practical. And many protests, of all different forms, are meant to create solidarity, a strength of bond between like minded people, not only to change the minds of others, which will never be done in a single day, anyhow. Though at universities where this protest is practcied by hundreds or thousands of people, it can actually have a dramatic immediate effect too. BarkingDoc 20:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am puzzled why you'd talk about screaming and shouting to me. Vocal protest doesn't mean shouting or screaming. It sometimes means nicely pointing out that gay people are people as well, and should have rights. This is actually sometimes effective. Also, I just want to mention that one does not have to be gay to make a vocal protest against mistreatment, as your message unintentionally implies. As well, I was just noticing that a lot of it, in my experience, was preaching to the choir, and this might be different elsewhere. Also, I did participate, as I said, and gave it the one day a year.

AntiUsername 23:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if you took "screaming and shouting" as judgemental; I didn't mean it that way. I personally support all forms of expression and protest, from peaceful to very rowdy. In any case, this conversation isn't relevant to the article. If you want to talk more feel free to contact me on my talk page. BarkingDoc 19:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am neutral on the issue of whether there "should" be a criticisms section, however, there should only be one if there is information to include in it. I took some time to look for references regarding the criticisms offered in the section, or to find any others, and I have not been able to find any discussion or instance of those opinions. Therefore I am removing the following two paragraphs until such time as a citation can be included:

The day has been criticized by some for being too narrow in its scope. Rather than focusing solely on GLBT issues, some feel it should cover a broader range of societal issues. The variation of having students choose their own cause to be silent for is supported by these individuals.

For many students apathetic to the cause, the day may be seen as a minor annoyance and in some schools, these students may make a game of seeing how many of their classmates who observe the day they can get to accidently break their silence.

Without citations these paragraphs contain no information, only opinion, and therefore I think they don't warrant inclusion even with the [citation needed] note.

Because there is no available criticism, I am changing the heading to the more accurate term "opposition" and rewriting the "Day Of Truth" paragraph to indicate accurately that it is a Christian evangelical group opposed to homosexuality; the reference comes from the organization's own web page.

Since the 2006 date is approaching this page is likely to get a lot of visits in the next couple of weeks, so it is more important than ever to have a high standard of accuracy and neutral information. BarkingDoc 05:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ehrm, on the ADF thing, when I read the day of truth website I only see "The Day of Truth was established to counter the promotion of the homosexual agenda and express an opposing viewpoint from a Christian perspective.", but it doesn't seem to say that it is necessarily for the cause of evangelism, and it appears more opposed to the agenda they believe exists rather than being anti-gay, unless you meant anti-gay as in the orientation as a whole. Homestarmy 12:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "evangelical" is not the right term. I think "Christian political foundation" is accurate based on what I have read. BarkingDoc 01:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would they want to have a "Day of Silence" when "silence is consent." It seem we would be agreeing with the oppression of LGBT. If you don't speak out, you are enabling it. 204.184.80.26 (talk) 18:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppression?

I don't understand how the word "oppression" is being used in the section heading "Opposition/oppression." I don't think the section deals with anyone being oppressed. Can you clarify? BarkingDoc 15:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it either, it sounds kind of mean. Homestarmy 15:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

It is definetly tricky to get the right wording here, especially in the opposition section, because the ADF really IS a group which lobbies for the right of Christians to harass and intimidate gays--- which is to say, they believe students should be allowed to express anti-gay beliefs with the same aggresive vigor that students might be allowed to express anti-war beliefs. They also have a legitimate legal/free speech argument. It isn't accurate to play down their very strong anti-gay agenda, but it also isn't fair to over-stress that aspect. For my money, I think we have managed to strike an excellent tone of straightforward, non-judgemental information in the article as it exists right now. BarkingDoc 21:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harass and intimidate sounds like bullying people, you know, shoving them into lockers, stealing their lunch money, hacking their computers, that kind of thing. People might get really ticked off when people tell them that the Bible condemns homosexuals, but there's a pretty big line between ticking people off and harassment :/. Does the day of truth website encourage Christians to chase homosexuals down the hall screaming after them? And what do you mean by "Anti-gay", you mean against the people or against the orientation? Homestarmy 21:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any difference. Hyacinth 09:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well think about it, if you were, for example, anti-Bush, does that necessarily mean you are both against the president as a person and against his policies? Homestarmy 13:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can think of a more accurate term than "anti-gay" then feel free to try and use it. I don't see any problem with it. Honestly, considering how tiny the "Day Of Truth" is (less than 1 percent the size of the Day of Silence), I think it is a stretch to include it in this article at all. BarkingDoc 17:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps for now I suppose. But wasn't there more to the opposition section than just the Day of Truth? Homestarmy 19:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed there was other activity, but so far I have found one article about one man who does a counter protest at one school. If anyone can find more, it might add up to something. BarkingDoc

Merged Opposition to ADF

There was a tag at Alliance Defense Fund suggesting the "Day Of Truth" be merged there, so I went ahead and did it. I think that information makes a lot more sense in the context of the ADF's other activities, and I don't see any noteworthy reason for it to be here, at least not in any detail. The Day of Truth also has its own article. BarkingDoc 18:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Find a source?

From the article:

"There have been several instances in which participants of the Day of Silence faced disciplinary action for the disturbance of regular day-to-day school operations."

I actually believe this is true, and I think we can leave it in for now, but can the contributor or someone find a source which would support it? There might be something on the Day Of Silence website.

I did have to remove the new "opposition" section-- I understand the intent, but anything like that really needs to have sources. This isn't the place for debate. BarkingDoc 21:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number of people participating

I think the source listed for how many people participated, along with the estimation should be removed. It provides no references to how the estimation is made. The validity of the claim is highly suspect based on the sites agenda. --FreeThoughts (talk) 09:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GLSEN cites this info on their website although the wiki currently says something about students dying for whatever reason. Editing that! 38.124.250.3 (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification please?

The article IMO leaves it to the readers judgment if this day is a "LGTB-Action Only" or if it is meant to support anybody who is recipient/victim of bullying and harassment, regardless of whatever group/class/peer they belong to. The Goal would certainly have to be to end ALL bullying, or am I wrong? Are some people being left behind? -80.135.159.224 (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think most people observing the Day of Silence would agree that all bullying is wrong, but this event is specifically a protest of the way that GLBT teens have to be silent about themselves or risk harassment, and the way schools often choose to be silent about the existence of GLBT teens. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence King

I think I'm going to be adding a few sentences about Lawrence King under the history section. He's the middle schooler from Oxnard that was shot by another kid during class because of his sexuality. This year's Day Of Silence is going to be held in memory of him. Also, I'm correcting the date. For some reason someone said the DOS is always on a Friday, this year it's actually a Tuesday and, I believe, last year was a Wednesday.
Teh darkcloud (talk) 02:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Whoa. Nevermind. I'll change it back. This year it -is- a Friday. I have no idea what calendar I was looking at. Teh darkcloud (talk) 07:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside the US?

There's absolutely no information in this article as to how (or even whether) the Day of Silence takes place outside the US. If it is mostly/entirely an American thing, then this should be mentioned in the lead. If it's more international, then some non-US examples should be given. 86.132.137.5 (talk) 04:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added "in the United States" to the intro, since it does indeed seem to be strictly an American event. --Delirium (talk) 07:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it has been done in canada as well, so maybe in north america 199.185.84.194 (talk) 16:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My recent edits

I've removed material that seemed to be more about explaining what's bad about being gay than explaining what the Day of Silence is, or even explaining who opposes it and why. More neutral and sourced information about the counter-protests would be useful, especially the observation of Day of Truth which some groups sponser. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Objectivity?

I'm wondering whether this article is as objective as it should be. While I am certainly not against the rights of LGBT people and believe that their voices should be heard just as loudly as straight people, the article neglects to mention some of the downsides to a day of silence. When I was in high school, the day of silence seemed impractical, since students are not allowed to verbally express their opinions and purposes. Also, a school-wide observance of this event often disrupts actual teaching and learning at schools by removing many students from the schools and prohibiting protesters from engaging in school activities. Also, "conservatives" are not the only opponents to this event, so I don't think that the last section should be titled "conservative criticism." There should definitely be a section that outlines these criticisms, which can are commonly found in media coverage of the day of silence events at public schools. See this Seattle Times article on a recent day of silence event to start with. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004373481_websilence25e.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.148.170 (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much agree with what you've said, and I do beleive that the "Opposition" section should be more inclusive of other views. I've started by removing "Conservative" from the section heading. —Mears man (talk) 02:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I added material as well. The way it was written it looked like the efforts to get kids to skip school was all talk and no action. I have added an example of actual action, and coincidentally it is similar to the one above. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, ref

In the Opposition section, after the statement: Legally, schools cannot be penalized for refusing to observe the Day of Silence. I have previously placed this statement: However, students that choose to participate, even if their school does not acknowledge the event, are protected by the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District supreme court case, which extended the First Amendment to the United States Constitution to students.

But people keep removing it and saying stuff about the ref. I said under the ref: Under United States common law, a supreme court decision becomes law (Case law). Students are protected by the outcome of the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District case. Another example of United States common law would be Roe v. Wade, which made abortion in the first trimester legal and protected by federal. This became law after the decision of the the case made by the judge. If you do not understand what common law is, WHICH IT THE LEGAL SYSTEM OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND 49 OF THE 50 STATES, the basic meaning is the outcome of a case , such as Roe v. Wade or Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, becomes law based on the judges ruling. If you still do not understand how common law works or would like to know more about it please see the article. Another example of how the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District case is used is to protect the rights of students who write for a student newspaper. [--Cooljuno411 (talk) 02:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)][reply]

See http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling#Tinker_v._Des_Moines_Independent_Community_School_District_on_Day_of_silence for my response to this. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is their to discuss, i'm right your wrong. You aren't even placing an argument, just saying "wiki policy", well maybe you should take a look too, cause it's obvious you don't even know what you are talking about.

[--Cooljuno411 (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)][reply]

Cooljuno411, please calm down. LegitimateAndEvenCompelling is not saying that you are wrong about case law or the implications of Tinker v. Des Moines. All that we're saying is that Wikipedia requires a reliable, third-party source stating that Tinker v. Des Moines applies to Day of Silence by allowing students to participate in this event even if their school does not recognize Day of Silence. Without such a source, the statement falls under WP:SYN and cannot remain in the article. —MearsMan ^talk 20:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYN, that's it. I couldn't put my finger on the policy. Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is an illegitimate argument, i am not construeing the data to make "original research". I don't know how you aren't understanding, it's very simple, the decision of a court case becomes law (case law) under a common law jurisdiction, what is so hard to understand about that? You would probably understand if you actually looked at the articles i have provided for you to read. I personally think there is a bias opinion that does not want to except the facts. common law jurisdictions are common in nations that were colonized by Britain such as Australia, Canada, and the United States.

[--Cooljuno411 (talk) 05:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)][reply]

We aren't allowed to make the connections ourselves; we can only report the connections made by reliable sources. Have there been any court cases specifically related to the day of silence whose results we could reference? If it has never been taken to court, then maybe we don't need a section saying what would happen if it were. We aren't lawyers, nor are we fortunetellers; we report what has happened, not what would or will happen. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not my argument, i said that court case extended the first amendment to students, now please justify what is wrong with that, you all keep saying i am making assumptions and original research, but no, that court case extended the first amendment right to students, simple as that, what is so hard to understand.

[--Cooljuno411 (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)][reply]

The problem I see is that you are not merely stating that Tinker v. Des Moines granted the first amendment right to students or you wouldn't be posting it here, but rather on an article about the court case or student rights. What you are doing is posting information about this court case in this article, implying that Tinker v. Des Moines grants students the right to partake in Day of Silence regardless of whether the school acknowledges the event. As far as I can tell, the court case said nothing about Day of Silence, and your additions to the article therefore fall under WP:SYN. —MearsMan ^talk 20:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, i am merely saying that Tinker v. Des Moines granted students the first amend. right. That why i said in a previous post: "...my argument, i said that court case extended the first amendment to students,'...' That is all i have been saying this whole time... and i was giving common law as the justification to why that is...

[--Cooljuno411 (talk) 06:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)][reply]

Lego my logo

The page says:

thumb|right|400px|The Day of Silence logo that can be seen on their website.

This is incorrect. This is not the logo. That is just a graphic on the page, like the "Remember Lawrence King" graphic. The logo is "Day of Silence" in red and grey letters with striped red underlining and the r in a circle registration mark ®. I was going to remove the graphic but that might have been too drastic, so I'm bringing it to people's attention here. And that caption is poorly worded anyway. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, we meet again... I think it's both. The red and black mouth logo is called brand.jpg on their site. Since they explicitly offer banners for placement on web sites; this undated combined one would probably be best to replace the current one in the article. —EqualRights (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's better. That mouth brand is totally unrecognizable. At least combined with the words it's much better. A brand is designed to be recognizable. That benefits both the brand's owner and the consumer. The mouth by itself doesn't benefit anyone, in my opinion. Actually, it looks like it's talking or screaming, not being silent. Further, the words are stylized as if they were intended to be or be by themselves a logo --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll take care of it —EqualRights (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks lovely! Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And new placement is better. —EqualRights (talk) 14:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-sequitur reaction

Some reactions in the discussion here and from the Christian Rights treat the day as if it was about silencing the opposition. But the day is clearly about being silent in protest. No section of the article should pretend otherwise (like the quasi-critcism section "Opposition" does). --84.153.102.77 (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 15, 2011

On 11:47, 9 March 2011 66.235.228.29 posted in the article:

when is 2011's Day of silence ?

According to http://dayofsilence.org/ it will be on April 15, 2011. -- Limulus (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Straight Pride T-shirt.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Straight Pride T-shirt.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Straight Pride T-shirt.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Day of Silence

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Day of Silence's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Newsweek":

From List of unlawfully killed transgender people: Setoodeh, Ramin (19 July 2008). "Young, Gay and Murdered". Newsweek. Archived from the original on 22 July 2008. Retrieved 23 July 2008. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
From Murder of Larry King: Setoodeh, Ramin (2008-07-19). "Young, Gay and Murdered". Newsweek. Archived from the original on 2008-07-22. Retrieved 2008-07-23. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
From Significant acts of violence against LGBT people: Setoodeh, Ramin (July 19, 2008). "Young, Gay and Murdered". Newsweek. Retrieved 2008-07-23.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What IS the Day of Silence?

I clicked on the Wikipedia link to find out what the Day of Silence is, and I feel like the article didn't answer my question at all. It's an "annual day of action", but what action? What do you actually DO on the Day of Silence? Not talk at all? Just not talk outside of class? Or is the name a metaphor and silence is actually not involved? (And what's the background behind deciding that silence, metaphorical or otherwise, is a good way to deal with LGBT bullying issues? I just feel like I'm missing something here.)

If someone who knows the answers to these questions could add them to the article, I think that would be a big improvement.

2602:306:3280:5870:E01A:ED13:A7D2:2713 (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction did contain an explanation, then the article was vandalised changing the explanation to something offensive, then the new offensive explanation was removed but nobody thought to restore the original explanation. Anyway I restored the original explanation, but it could still be improved. Walkerjames213423143242 (talk) 10:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Day of Silence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:19, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Day of Silence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120724230852/http://www.dayofsilence.org/content/getinformation_faq.html to http://www.dayofsilence.org/content/getinformation_faq.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Day of Silence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Date paragraph for Day of Silence is getting confusing

Because the date started out being the 2nd Friday of April but the last 4 out of 5 times the org that decides the date has instead simply picked a day, we now have more exceptions than dates that fit the rule even if you go back 7 years total (inclusive). I just updated to add this year (yet another date that doesn't fit the 2nd Friday rule) and it took me a bit to understand the formatting and how to add the new date and it all felt really awkward (whether you are reading or editing). Perhaps something like this would work better: "Up until 2019 the date was primarily held on the 2nd Friday of April (expect 2019 when... blah), however since 2020 the day has simply been designated year by year. Below are the dates for the Day of Silence since 2020:" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmckey (talk • contribs) 13:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]